In your opinion, what is the difference between a simple picture, and "photography" as an art? Is it like beauty, just in the eye of the beholder? Or is there a quantifiable aspect to certain pictures that would make them art? I know it's not the subject matter, because even the most mundane and boring objects can be photographed in a beautiful and eye-catching way. And there are plenty of gorgeous things that are not photographed well. So what is it?

Oh good question! I have asked myself this question and yet to come to a definitive answer other than it is in the eye of the beholder.

But I wonder if a photograph to be a success needs to convey or evoke something.

In my poll I ask about 'what is art?' and I propose answers such as - imitation, life, imagination, an expression, communication or all of these. As I hoped to get an idea of what others think to give me an idea in what makes photography art.

I like Jackal's comment about conveying or evoking something. but it takes an eye so compose something that might be pleasing. Somebody has to see the unique or special moments or features of a subject regardless of how ordinary it may seem to most people

Art, for me, has to evoke emotion, certainly. Having "an eye for it" is important, too--and then there is the practiced-skill aspect of deciding what angle to go for, what is in the background, etc.

Photography is what you think it is. If you think something is a snapshot, then it is. If it's a "photograph" (some use that as a metaphor for "artistic"), then it's that, too.

I run. Not as much as some, but more than others. I've been called a jogger, and this always sets my teeth on edge. Now, I usually don't correct people...I just tell myself that "runner" is a term used by those who do, and "jogger" by those who don't.

There's an analogy here--"photography" is (or can be) what all of us in this community, and those in the world at large who own a camera, do. "Taking snapshots" is what those who don't do it, would call it.

Jim